Short Note : 1. In this revision, the applicant Amitrsaugar has challenged the order of the Collector, Betul, confiscating the truck ADT 492 and also for setting aside the order passed by the District and Session Judge, Betul, confirming the Collector's order. 2. The material facts are these : The applicant is the owner of a Tata Mercedes Truck Modal 1969 bearing registration No. ADT 492 which was let out on hire purchase agreement dated 29-1-1975 with Sardar Tirathsingh of Indore. The monthly hire instalment was Rs. 1720/- total amount payable being Rs. 31,000/-. The registration book contained an endorsement to the effect that the vehicle was subject to the hire purchase agreement and the applicant was recorded as a financier owner of the said vehicle. 3. Between the intervening night of 3rd and 4th December 1975, the Food Inspector, Betul seized this truck carrying 105 bags of wheat on the allegations that the truck was carrying the wheat for smuggling it into the adjoining State of Maharashtra. One Ujagarsingh was driving the truck. 4. The matter reached the Collector, Betul under section 6-A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The Collector gave show cause notices to the driver Ujagarsingh, the hirer Tirathsingh and the owner of the wheat Ishwar Das, but notice was not given to the applicant. After considering the written replies submitted by the aforesaid persons as also after consideration of the evidence, the Collector passed an order dated 11-5-1976 (Annexure A). 5. The applicant preferred an appeal before District and Sessions Judge, Betul, under section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1965, but the District and Sessions Judge by an order dated 25-8-1976, confirmed the Collector's order. The appellant has therefore, challenged the orders of the Collector, Betul and the District and Sessions Judge, Betul, in this revision. Held : I have heard Shri S.C. Datt, counsel for the applicant and Shri A.G. Telang, Deputy Government Advocate. I was of the view that the order of the District and Sessions Judge needs to be set aside and the case be sent to him for hearing the applicant and then deciding the matter in accordance with law. 6. It will be seen that a show cause notice is essential before the grains or vehicle is confiscated. I was of the view that the order of the District and Sessions Judge needs to be set aside and the case be sent to him for hearing the applicant and then deciding the matter in accordance with law. 6. It will be seen that a show cause notice is essential before the grains or vehicle is confiscated. Similarly, after an order of confiscation is passed, the judicial authority has also to give a notice giving an opportunity to the aggrieved person to be heard. The record before me disclosed that the applicant was not noticed by the Collector. He filed an appeal before judicial authority (District and Sessions Judge, Betul) supporting his memo of appeal with certain documents but the judicial authority paid no attention to the documents and held that the applicant was not entitled to adduce additional evidence. 7. A perusal of the record of the Collector shows that the notice was not issued to the applicant. No opportunity was given to him to lead evidence in support of his contention. Inspite of this, on 13-4-1976, the applicant put in appearance before the Collector and stated that he was the owner of the truck which was run by Tirathsingh on hire purchase agreement. He further alleged that Tirathsingh did not pay him his hire instalments and therefore, he was entitled to its possession. He further stated that he was totally unaware of the facts and circumstances under which the vehicle was seized. This application finds place in the Collector's order-sheet dated 14-4-1976, but without consideration of this application, the order was passed on 11-5-1976. 8. Before the District and Sessions Judge, Betul (Judicial authority), the applicant prayed for setting aside the order of the Collector. He mentioned that no show cause notice was given to him. He also filed the registration certificate and the hire purpose agreement. Clause IV of the hire purchase agreement says that until such payments are made and until the owners make over all their right, title and interest to the hirer, the vehicle shall remain the absolute property of the owners. Besides this, the certificate of the Regional Transport Authority, Hyderabad shows that the truck is registered in the name of Tirathsingh under hire purchase agreement with the applicant. Besides this, the certificate of the Regional Transport Authority, Hyderabad shows that the truck is registered in the name of Tirathsingh under hire purchase agreement with the applicant. In view of these two documents unless Tirath Singh had made payment as per his purchase agreement, the ownership in the vehicle shall vest in the applicant. The applicant was, therefore, entitled to a notice and also entitled to an opportunity for placing his version before the District and Sessions Judge. It may be mentioned that section 6-B(2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 shows that the owner of the vehicle could plead lack of knowledge or connivance on his part of his agent and other persons and also that each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use. In my opinion, therefore, the order of the District and Sessions Judge (Judicial authority) confiscating the truck is not correct. The District and Sessions Judge shall admit documents, give an opportunity to the applicant to put forth his evidence and submissions and then consider whether the order of the Collector confiscating the truck in question deserves to be confirmed or not. I may here state that other adverse findings recorded by the Collector against Ujagarsingh, Ishwardas and Tirathsingh shall stand particularly the finding that the truck in question was found within the prohibited area smuggling 105 bags of wheat in the adjoining State of Maharashtra. Since the above named persons have not challenged the confiscation of 105 bags of wheat before the District and Sessions Judge, Betul (judicial authority) that finding shall stand. The only scope before the District and Sessions Judge will be to consider the question of confiscation of the truck and for this he will notice he applicant and permit him to put-forth oral and documentary evidence and then decide the question in accordance with law. Revision allowed.